Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by stating that the CSD supports the introduction of Bill C-257, which aims to prevent employers governed by the Canadian Labour Code from employing replacement workers during strikes or lock-outs.
We are delighted that it has been passed at second reading by the House of Commons, and believe that passing it at third reading will result in a fairer balance of power between employers and unions during strikes and lock-outs.
Bear in mind that the right to strike and the right to impose a lock-out are cornerstones of the Canadian collective bargaining system, a system that, furthermore, relies on both parties negotiating in good faith.
With the exception of a few circumstances set out in the law, we are of the belief that there should be no third party intervention during a strike or lock-out—any financial conflict ought to be strictly between the two parties involved, the employer and the union.
We believe that employing replacement workers violates the fundamental principle of our industrial relations system that governs the relationship between the two parties by collective agreement. Indeed, the use of replacement workers upsets the economic balance of power between the employer and his employees. Our system is based on the premise that if employees cannot earn a living and employers cannot run their business they will be motivated to reach a mutually acceptable resolution to the conflict as quickly as is possible. Both parties are trying to keep their heads above water.
That is the way in which our industrial relations system operates. There are other characteristics of the system that must also be taken into consideration when discussing this matter. I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how frustrated striking employees feel when replacement workers are hired; they feel that their jobs are being stolen from under their feet. Along with giving rise to frustration, this situation also breeds resentment that sometimes lasts for years. Nothing is more harmful to a working environment than widespread resentment.
Such a situation also creates tension in the local community, tension that can sometimes take years to dissipate. I experienced the asbestos strike myself—we can discuss it during the question and answer period if you so wish. Decades after the strike, I heard testimony proving that communities had been deeply scarred, primarily because of the use of replacement workers.
Obviously, when the conflict is resolved, in most cases where replacement workers had been hired, it is more difficult to turn the page and create the healthy workplace environment that is so necessary to the success of a business.
I would like to end by talking to you about Quebec's experience in this field. The Quebec Labour Code has outlawed the use of replacement workers since 1977—this has allowed us to strike the right balance in our industrial relations system.
We have also noted that these provisions have resulted in other important trends. They have led to a considerable reduction in workplace violence and have improved the workplace environment in the aftermath of a labour dispute. Furthermore, they have in no way had a negative impact on the frequency or duration of disputes, nor on the performance of the business.
In conclusion, we sincerely hope that this bill will be adopted by the House of Commons, as it will strengthen our industrial relations system by creating a fairer balance of power between employers and employees.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.